Clark Lindsey has quite a round up of links from this week.
[Update at noon]
What is the role of the Space Force? A long essay from (USAF Colonel — ret) Peter Garretson.
A refutation of a stupid thesis (including a dumb book by Chris Mooney). If I had time, I’d write a book called “The Democrats’ War On Science.” It would have a more solid basis than Mooney’s.
Oh, and this once again puts paid to the notion of “peer review” as having any value.
[Update a few minutes later]
“Consensus,” and politics disguised as science.
This is cruel (to the media as much or more than to her), but hilarious.
It’s tragic that we have to reteach this lesson, that these children in adult bodies should have learned in school and college.
This kind of thing makes me ashamed to be an alumnus. It makes me wish I were a donor, so I could threaten to stop donating. And good for Tarnow.
Before they could betray America, they first had to betray their own people:
Marxism-Leninism, ideologically incompatible with Judaism, specifically required the Jewish people to dissolve into the international proletariat. As part of its need to eradicate both the Jewish religion and Jewish nationhood, the Soviet Union forbade the teaching of Hebrew, a language essential to both. The “Jewish sections” of the party, the yevsektsii, enforced this program of Sovietization. As the historian Yuri Slezkine writes in his The House of Government, while Polish, Latvian, and Georgian high-ranking members of the party “seemed to assume that proletarian internationalism was compatible with their native tongues, songs, and foods,” high-ranking Jewish members did not speak Yiddish at home or try to pass anything Jewish on to their children. Many proved their new loyalty by pursuing their fellow Jews with special vigor.
When it came to Zionism, the Communist party under Stalin hailed the 1929 Arab pogroms against Jews in Palestine as the start of an Arab Communist revolution and created the watchwords of 20th-century anti-Zionism: a leftist version of anti-Semitism that condemned Jewish national aspirations as a crime against the international order.
Barry Sanders, who honeymooned in the USSR, is an example of this. And of course, the Left continues to blame the Jews for the problems of the Middle East.
Clark Lindsey has a news roundup.
Thoughts from Judith Curry on motivated reasoning:
…how did I end up taking a different path and ending up in a different place than say Michael Mann, Katherine Hayhoe, or whoever?
First, as a female scientist of my generation, I wasn’t really entrained into the ‘power’ community surrounding climate science, although in the 2000’s I was named to some National Academy and other advisory committees. So my career path wasn’t invested in this kind of ‘power’ climb to influence climate science or public policy. I wasn’t editor of any journals, a lead author for the IPCC, etc. I was more interested in doing my own research. When I went to Georgia Tech in 2002, my main objective was in building a faculty and mentoring them and developing a good educational, professional and personal environment for students. So my career objectives were not really tied up in the ‘AGW enterprise.’
My generation of scientists (60+) have mostly identified as atmospheric scientists (meteorologists), oceanographers, geologists, geographers. By contrast, younger scientists (particularly those receiving Ph.D. since 2000) studying any topic related to climate pretty much have their careers defined by the AGW enterprise. As a percentage, I suspect that a far lower number of 60+ climate scientists are activists (and are more ‘skeptical’), relative to a large percentage of under 50’s (who don’t seem skeptical at all). Somebody outa do a survey.
Second, politically I’m an independent with libertarian leanings, and I have never been particularly aligned with environmental movement (while I highly value clean air and water and species diversity, the environmental movement seems motivated by other issues). I simply don’t have the soul of an ‘activist.’
Third, since my days as a graduate student I have had an abiding interest in philosophy and the social sciences, particularly as related to science.
Fourth, I care more about whether my publications will stand the test of time and contribute to deep understanding, than I care about the ‘wow’ factor, which I regard as transient and leading to nothing but trouble (e.g. Webster et al. 2005).
Fifth, at this stage of my life I can afford to buck the ‘system.’ 20 years ago, when I had a mortgage payment and college tuition to pay, there is no way I would have put myself out on such a controversial limb. There is only so much personal and professional integrity that you can afford, if your job might be at stake.
So that summarizes my personal journey, over the past 14 years, to fight against my own personal biases. Through Climate Etc. I provide resources that I hope others can use to think about, understand and challenge their own biases. Apparently trying to fight against bias in climate science gets you labeled as a ‘denier’, ‘anti-science,’ ‘serial climate disinformer.’ There seems to be no end to the perversions of ‘motivated’ climate science.
Tell me about it.
How they killed the American dream for millions.
I consider it criminal, ethically. Get the damn government out of it.
[Early afternoon update]
“Millennials are the most educated generation in American history, but many college graduates have tens of thousands of dollars in debt to go along with their degrees.”
They are not (necessarily) “educated.” Many, perhaps most, of them are merely credentialed.